<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_11_2226203</id>
	<title>Judge OK's MediaSentry Evidence, Limits Defendant's Expert</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1244719980000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">NewYorkCountryLawyer</a> writes <i>"In <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Documents.htm&amp;s=Virgin\_v\_Thomas">Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset</a>, the judge has <a href="http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#3651721133021875327">denied the defendant's motion</a> to suppress the MediaSentry evidence for illegality, holding that MediaSentry's conduct did not violate any of the three laws cited by the defendant. The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA's objections to testimony by the defendant's expert, <a href="http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~kyd/">Prof. Yongdae Kim</a>, but did sustain some of them.  In his <a href="http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer\_Copyright\_Internet\_Law/virgin\_thomas\_090611DecisionInLimineMotions.pdf">27-page decision (PDF)</a>, Judge Davis ruled that Prof. Kim could testify about the 'possible scenarios,' but could not opine as to what he thinks 'probably' occurred. The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point. Similarly, because Kim explicitly testified that this case
does not involve any "black IP space," or any "temporarily unused" IP space ...., he is not permitted to opine at trial that hijacking of black IP space or temporary unused IP is a possible explanation in this case.' Dr. Kim was also precluded from testifying as to whether song files were conspicuously placed in a shared files folder or were wilfully offered for distribution. The judge also precluded him from testifying about Kazaa's functioning, but it was unclear to me what the judge was precluding him from saying, because the offered testimony seemed to relate only to the question of whether the Kazaa-reported IP address precluded the possibility of the device having been run behind a NAT device."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes " In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset , the judge has denied the defendant 's motion to suppress the MediaSentry evidence for illegality , holding that MediaSentry 's conduct did not violate any of the three laws cited by the defendant .
The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA 's objections to testimony by the defendant 's expert , Prof. Yongdae Kim , but did sustain some of them .
In his 27-page decision ( PDF ) , Judge Davis ruled that Prof. Kim could testify about the 'possible scenarios, ' but could not opine as to what he thinks 'probably ' occurred .
The court also ruled that , 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case , the Court excludes Kim 's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant 's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point .
Similarly , because Kim explicitly testified that this case does not involve any " black IP space , " or any " temporarily unused " IP space .... , he is not permitted to opine at trial that hijacking of black IP space or temporary unused IP is a possible explanation in this case .
' Dr. Kim was also precluded from testifying as to whether song files were conspicuously placed in a shared files folder or were wilfully offered for distribution .
The judge also precluded him from testifying about Kazaa 's functioning , but it was unclear to me what the judge was precluding him from saying , because the offered testimony seemed to relate only to the question of whether the Kazaa-reported IP address precluded the possibility of the device having been run behind a NAT device .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the judge has denied the defendant's motion to suppress the MediaSentry evidence for illegality, holding that MediaSentry's conduct did not violate any of the three laws cited by the defendant.
The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA's objections to testimony by the defendant's expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim, but did sustain some of them.
In his 27-page decision (PDF), Judge Davis ruled that Prof. Kim could testify about the 'possible scenarios,' but could not opine as to what he thinks 'probably' occurred.
The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point.
Similarly, because Kim explicitly testified that this case
does not involve any "black IP space," or any "temporarily unused" IP space ...., he is not permitted to opine at trial that hijacking of black IP space or temporary unused IP is a possible explanation in this case.
' Dr. Kim was also precluded from testifying as to whether song files were conspicuously placed in a shared files folder or were wilfully offered for distribution.
The judge also precluded him from testifying about Kazaa's functioning, but it was unclear to me what the judge was precluding him from saying, because the offered testimony seemed to relate only to the question of whether the Kazaa-reported IP address precluded the possibility of the device having been run behind a NAT device.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>amicusNYCL</author>
	<datestamp>1244724660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you make of the judge's decision on pages 6-7 that the MPDA doesn't apply because MediaSentry isn't based in MN?  If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN, and they were in MN when they were being investigated, why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from?  If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?  I don't understand that decision, I really thought that claim above all the others had the most merit.</p><p>I know it's probably not considered great practice, but can Camara argue with the judge that the decision was incorrect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you make of the judge 's decision on pages 6-7 that the MPDA does n't apply because MediaSentry is n't based in MN ?
If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN , and they were in MN when they were being investigated , why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from ?
If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US , am I no longer liable under US laws just because I 'm in Mexico when I did it ?
I do n't understand that decision , I really thought that claim above all the others had the most merit.I know it 's probably not considered great practice , but can Camara argue with the judge that the decision was incorrect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you make of the judge's decision on pages 6-7 that the MPDA doesn't apply because MediaSentry isn't based in MN?
If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN, and they were in MN when they were being investigated, why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from?
If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?
I don't understand that decision, I really thought that claim above all the others had the most merit.I know it's probably not considered great practice, but can Camara argue with the judge that the decision was incorrect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303051</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1244729160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I place a webserver on my computer, and you access the publicly available web page I place there, you're not "snooping", even if your purpose is to obtain evidence to use against me.  That's what the court's ruling boils down to.  And I think it's fundamentally correct.  Reading any information I publicly publish does not constitute "snooping" -- there is, as the court says, "no expectation of solitude or seclusion" when you run a server the purpose of which is to make data available to the public.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I place a webserver on my computer , and you access the publicly available web page I place there , you 're not " snooping " , even if your purpose is to obtain evidence to use against me .
That 's what the court 's ruling boils down to .
And I think it 's fundamentally correct .
Reading any information I publicly publish does not constitute " snooping " -- there is , as the court says , " no expectation of solitude or seclusion " when you run a server the purpose of which is to make data available to the public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I place a webserver on my computer, and you access the publicly available web page I place there, you're not "snooping", even if your purpose is to obtain evidence to use against me.
That's what the court's ruling boils down to.
And I think it's fundamentally correct.
Reading any information I publicly publish does not constitute "snooping" -- there is, as the court says, "no expectation of solitude or seclusion" when you run a server the purpose of which is to make data available to the public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28310133</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244829120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever ripped audio off a CD to hard drive?  If so, you engaged in "willful copyright infringement," according to the official stance of the RIAA, argued in court.  If that CD had 10 tracks, you could find yourself owing <b>1.5 million dollars</b> to the "victims."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever ripped audio off a CD to hard drive ?
If so , you engaged in " willful copyright infringement , " according to the official stance of the RIAA , argued in court .
If that CD had 10 tracks , you could find yourself owing 1.5 million dollars to the " victims .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever ripped audio off a CD to hard drive?
If so, you engaged in "willful copyright infringement," according to the official stance of the RIAA, argued in court.
If that CD had 10 tracks, you could find yourself owing 1.5 million dollars to the "victims.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302953</id>
	<title>long summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244728260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is loooooooooooong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is loooooooooooong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is loooooooooooong</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302617</id>
	<title>Re:So, what now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244725860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Are we fucked, or are we really fucked?</p></div></blockquote><p>This is slashdot.  Nobody here gets fucked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we fucked , or are we really fucked ? This is slashdot .
Nobody here gets fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we fucked, or are we really fucked?This is slashdot.
Nobody here gets fucked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304105</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>Nefarious Wheel</author>
	<datestamp>1244738340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained...</p></div><p>Yes, that one's a stunner.  I suppose one could then incorporate a private detective agency in Liberia and practice in Minnesota, to the point of supplying evidence by manufacturing files on someone's computer?</p><p>Hey, mon, it's not illegal in Liberia...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained...Yes , that one 's a stunner .
I suppose one could then incorporate a private detective agency in Liberia and practice in Minnesota , to the point of supplying evidence by manufacturing files on someone 's computer ? Hey , mon , it 's not illegal in Liberia.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained...Yes, that one's a stunner.
I suppose one could then incorporate a private detective agency in Liberia and practice in Minnesota, to the point of supplying evidence by manufacturing files on someone's computer?Hey, mon, it's not illegal in Liberia...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302449</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244724660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are all kinds of needs in the various worlds of the police, detective agencies, spy agencies, supremacy groups, monitoring groups, pressure groups, political groups, etc, that would LOVE to have packet sniffing software installed 100\% legally on the computers and/or modems of opponents and rivals.</p><p>Maybe the BBC can start by selling their software for injected targeted ads to US ISPs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are all kinds of needs in the various worlds of the police , detective agencies , spy agencies , supremacy groups , monitoring groups , pressure groups , political groups , etc , that would LOVE to have packet sniffing software installed 100 \ % legally on the computers and/or modems of opponents and rivals.Maybe the BBC can start by selling their software for injected targeted ads to US ISPs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are all kinds of needs in the various worlds of the police, detective agencies, spy agencies, supremacy groups, monitoring groups, pressure groups, political groups, etc, that would LOVE to have packet sniffing software installed 100\% legally on the computers and/or modems of opponents and rivals.Maybe the BBC can start by selling their software for injected targeted ads to US ISPs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303615</id>
	<title>This woman has a sainthood complex</title>
	<author>LrdDimwit</author>
	<datestamp>1244734500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Having followed this case since pretty early on, it seemd clear to me that she in actuality did it.  The RIAA has a panoply of cases, many of them very weak cases, some of them much stronger.  This is one of the strong cases that they have, not only was her machine directly connected to the cable modem the entire time, the music matches her tastes, and the username matches other usernames she used elsewhere.  One of the jurors went on record saying they ruled against her because they thought "she's a liar"&gt; <br>
<br>Some people just can't admit that they're wrong.  The classic example brought up in tech circles is the boss, or coworker, or luser who just can't admit they made a mistake and feel compelled to tell obvious lies.  Usually, the individual needs to lie to themselves so they can continue believing it isn't their fault.<br>
<br>I think the defendant in this case fits this description.  She seems hell-bent on getting reamed.  The judge instructed the two parties to hold a settlement conference a few weeks ago.  Not only was there no settlement, the defendant issued a statement that she would never settle.  She has more than $130K in legal bills, and the last verdict was for $220K.  That was overturned, but it could be more, much more, on retrial.  She could have made it go away for two orders of magnitude less money.  Instead she is fighting to the bitter end to go down with the ship.<br>
<br>Such behavior from someone who is (I think) guilty is so self-destructive I conclude she needs to believe she is blameless more than she needs seven figures' worth of cash.<br>
<br>If I were a lawyer, I would be telling my client this case is worse than a loser, it is doomed, and she needs to settle it right away.  NYCL, feel free to rip me a new one if (when?) you think I got any of that wrong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Having followed this case since pretty early on , it seemd clear to me that she in actuality did it .
The RIAA has a panoply of cases , many of them very weak cases , some of them much stronger .
This is one of the strong cases that they have , not only was her machine directly connected to the cable modem the entire time , the music matches her tastes , and the username matches other usernames she used elsewhere .
One of the jurors went on record saying they ruled against her because they thought " she 's a liar " &gt; Some people just ca n't admit that they 're wrong .
The classic example brought up in tech circles is the boss , or coworker , or luser who just ca n't admit they made a mistake and feel compelled to tell obvious lies .
Usually , the individual needs to lie to themselves so they can continue believing it is n't their fault .
I think the defendant in this case fits this description .
She seems hell-bent on getting reamed .
The judge instructed the two parties to hold a settlement conference a few weeks ago .
Not only was there no settlement , the defendant issued a statement that she would never settle .
She has more than $ 130K in legal bills , and the last verdict was for $ 220K .
That was overturned , but it could be more , much more , on retrial .
She could have made it go away for two orders of magnitude less money .
Instead she is fighting to the bitter end to go down with the ship .
Such behavior from someone who is ( I think ) guilty is so self-destructive I conclude she needs to believe she is blameless more than she needs seven figures ' worth of cash .
If I were a lawyer , I would be telling my client this case is worse than a loser , it is doomed , and she needs to settle it right away .
NYCL , feel free to rip me a new one if ( when ?
) you think I got any of that wrong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having followed this case since pretty early on, it seemd clear to me that she in actuality did it.
The RIAA has a panoply of cases, many of them very weak cases, some of them much stronger.
This is one of the strong cases that they have, not only was her machine directly connected to the cable modem the entire time, the music matches her tastes, and the username matches other usernames she used elsewhere.
One of the jurors went on record saying they ruled against her because they thought "she's a liar"&gt; 
Some people just can't admit that they're wrong.
The classic example brought up in tech circles is the boss, or coworker, or luser who just can't admit they made a mistake and feel compelled to tell obvious lies.
Usually, the individual needs to lie to themselves so they can continue believing it isn't their fault.
I think the defendant in this case fits this description.
She seems hell-bent on getting reamed.
The judge instructed the two parties to hold a settlement conference a few weeks ago.
Not only was there no settlement, the defendant issued a statement that she would never settle.
She has more than $130K in legal bills, and the last verdict was for $220K.
That was overturned, but it could be more, much more, on retrial.
She could have made it go away for two orders of magnitude less money.
Instead she is fighting to the bitter end to go down with the ship.
Such behavior from someone who is (I think) guilty is so self-destructive I conclude she needs to believe she is blameless more than she needs seven figures' worth of cash.
If I were a lawyer, I would be telling my client this case is worse than a loser, it is doomed, and she needs to settle it right away.
NYCL, feel free to rip me a new one if (when?
) you think I got any of that wrong.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304991</id>
	<title>It's a pity</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1244837580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> After a lot of years of predominately right wing rule in the United States, there's a shytte-load of judges who will rule against the individual in favour of big money every time.  It's the John Robertsing of US jurisprudence, and it has little to do with fairness, justice or judgment.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After a lot of years of predominately right wing rule in the United States , there 's a shytte-load of judges who will rule against the individual in favour of big money every time .
It 's the John Robertsing of US jurisprudence , and it has little to do with fairness , justice or judgment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> After a lot of years of predominately right wing rule in the United States, there's a shytte-load of judges who will rule against the individual in favour of big money every time.
It's the John Robertsing of US jurisprudence, and it has little to do with fairness, justice or judgment.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302997</id>
	<title>Re:So, what now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244728680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We wait to see what happens once the trail gets underway.</p><p>IANAL, but I did read the objection the first time around on Slashdot (something probably 99\% of commenters didn't do) and I thought at the time that the RIAA's side was making some pretty good points, especially about the 14 different ways in which Dr. Kim *speculated* about what might have happened.  Whether that's really what his deposition said or not, that's the way they phrased it in the objection, and I'm pretty sure that courts don't generally like or admit pure speculation.</p><p>There was undoubtedly a better way to spin things for the deposition than speculation, but that's what happened.  As far as the objection brief is concerned, a lot of the points were fairly legit, as the outcome here today shows.</p><p>I'm still hoping for the massive RIAA smackdown court trial to take place, but I'm fearing that this case is only going to set precedent that slightly bolsters their already-overreaching (in my opinion) position and powers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We wait to see what happens once the trail gets underway.IANAL , but I did read the objection the first time around on Slashdot ( something probably 99 \ % of commenters did n't do ) and I thought at the time that the RIAA 's side was making some pretty good points , especially about the 14 different ways in which Dr. Kim * speculated * about what might have happened .
Whether that 's really what his deposition said or not , that 's the way they phrased it in the objection , and I 'm pretty sure that courts do n't generally like or admit pure speculation.There was undoubtedly a better way to spin things for the deposition than speculation , but that 's what happened .
As far as the objection brief is concerned , a lot of the points were fairly legit , as the outcome here today shows.I 'm still hoping for the massive RIAA smackdown court trial to take place , but I 'm fearing that this case is only going to set precedent that slightly bolsters their already-overreaching ( in my opinion ) position and powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We wait to see what happens once the trail gets underway.IANAL, but I did read the objection the first time around on Slashdot (something probably 99\% of commenters didn't do) and I thought at the time that the RIAA's side was making some pretty good points, especially about the 14 different ways in which Dr. Kim *speculated* about what might have happened.
Whether that's really what his deposition said or not, that's the way they phrased it in the objection, and I'm pretty sure that courts don't generally like or admit pure speculation.There was undoubtedly a better way to spin things for the deposition than speculation, but that's what happened.
As far as the objection brief is concerned, a lot of the points were fairly legit, as the outcome here today shows.I'm still hoping for the massive RIAA smackdown court trial to take place, but I'm fearing that this case is only going to set precedent that slightly bolsters their already-overreaching (in my opinion) position and powers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304349</id>
	<title>Tor Operator</title>
	<author>BountyX</author>
	<datestamp>1244740740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What if he was a TOR exit node and one of the users connected were pirating, would he be liable? I wonder...</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if he was a TOR exit node and one of the users connected were pirating , would he be liable ?
I wonder.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if he was a TOR exit node and one of the users connected were pirating, would he be liable?
I wonder...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304129</id>
	<title>Funniest decision</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244738520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Defendant argues that, somehow, Plaintiffs have a monopoly on Kazaa experts.</p></div><p>That is the funniest statement I've ever read as part of a judge's ruling.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Defendant argues that , somehow , Plaintiffs have a monopoly on Kazaa experts.That is the funniest statement I 've ever read as part of a judge 's ruling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Defendant argues that, somehow, Plaintiffs have a monopoly on Kazaa experts.That is the funniest statement I've ever read as part of a judge's ruling.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302349</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1244724120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This could be a victory for Jammie. The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence. <br> <br>

I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.<br> <br>

Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.</p></div><p>Please, make up your mind and tell me how to properly react to this already.  I feel like Philip J. Fry when he found out he was going to be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Futurama\_305\_-\_Amazon\_Women\_in\_the\_Mood.jpg" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">snusnu'd to death</a> [wikipedia.org].  Or is watching humans squirm precisely what lawyers just like to <b>watch</b>?!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be a victory for Jammie .
The judge carefully lays out , at pages 13-14 , the standards for admissibility of technical evidence .
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards .
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly , this trial may end abrutly , because the RIAA 's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.Please , make up your mind and tell me how to properly react to this already .
I feel like Philip J. Fry when he found out he was going to be snusnu 'd to death [ wikipedia.org ] .
Or is watching humans squirm precisely what lawyers just like to watch ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be a victory for Jammie.
The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.Please, make up your mind and tell me how to properly react to this already.
I feel like Philip J. Fry when he found out he was going to be snusnu'd to death [wikipedia.org].
Or is watching humans squirm precisely what lawyers just like to watch?
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302545</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1244725440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you that this kind of rule does not seem evenly applied. If Somebody at MediaSentry was doing this from their living room, then that is where the law applies? If so, your argument would seem to be valid; I could hack from some other country and be beyond U.S. law (assuming no treaty applied, etc.)
<br> <br>
So, how about a hypothetical? I live in a state where both parties must be informed before a telephone conversation can be recorded. But not all states are that way. In some, only ONE party need know about the recording.
<br> <br>
So, if somebody from such a state called me up, in which state does the law apply? I would be very curious to know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you that this kind of rule does not seem evenly applied .
If Somebody at MediaSentry was doing this from their living room , then that is where the law applies ?
If so , your argument would seem to be valid ; I could hack from some other country and be beyond U.S. law ( assuming no treaty applied , etc .
) So , how about a hypothetical ?
I live in a state where both parties must be informed before a telephone conversation can be recorded .
But not all states are that way .
In some , only ONE party need know about the recording .
So , if somebody from such a state called me up , in which state does the law apply ?
I would be very curious to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you that this kind of rule does not seem evenly applied.
If Somebody at MediaSentry was doing this from their living room, then that is where the law applies?
If so, your argument would seem to be valid; I could hack from some other country and be beyond U.S. law (assuming no treaty applied, etc.
)
 
So, how about a hypothetical?
I live in a state where both parties must be informed before a telephone conversation can be recorded.
But not all states are that way.
In some, only ONE party need know about the recording.
So, if somebody from such a state called me up, in which state does the law apply?
I would be very curious to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28307129</id>
	<title>Could be bad precedents?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244816880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never commented on Slashdot before, but I think this ruling on MedaSentry may set horrible precedents.  IANAL, IANAML, so I can&#226;(TM)t comment to the specific laws or legal though processes, but from an outside viewer&#226;(TM)s perspective the judge&#226;(TM)s logic seems to have some flaws.  Please correct me if my own logic is flawed.</p><p>First, if I understand it correctly, this motion now allows me to directly access the judge&#226;(TM)s own computer and not violate the laws cited in the motion so long as I am not physically within the state of Minnesota when I do it.</p><p>Moreover, by the judge&#226;(TM)s logic, were I to travel from Fargo to Minneapolis and set up a listening device to listen in on the judge&#226;(TM)s chambers which uses the Internet (or phone line or short wave radio) to transmit the information, then return to Fargo to listen in on the judge, I would not be violating the laws cited in the motion.  Better yet, were I to have someone else do the installing I would be even further beyond violation (since in the first case I would have to physically install the device while in the second I would not).  In neither case would I be physically within Minnesota when I acquired the information.</p><p>And here&#226;(TM)s what seems to be the second logic failure:  MediaSentry DID operate in Minnesota &#226;" by actively accessing Ms. Thomas-Rasset&#226;(TM)s computer.  The fact that the company resides outside of the state should not invalidate the illegality of their action within the state.  If a Delaware based company violates Minnesota environmental law by the actions of a subsidiary outside of Minnesota (say by polluting a river that enters the state), the company is still cited in Minnesota, right?</p><p>Or is the judge simply trying to focus on intrastate violations rather than interstate and therefore federal violations over which he has no jurisdiction?  IS it a federal violation to conduct investigations across a state line when the investigating person/entity is not licensed in the initiating and/or target state?  When the investigating person/entity has no physical presence in the target state?  NYCL, can you answer this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never commented on Slashdot before , but I think this ruling on MedaSentry may set horrible precedents .
IANAL , IANAML , so I can   ( TM ) t comment to the specific laws or legal though processes , but from an outside viewer   ( TM ) s perspective the judge   ( TM ) s logic seems to have some flaws .
Please correct me if my own logic is flawed.First , if I understand it correctly , this motion now allows me to directly access the judge   ( TM ) s own computer and not violate the laws cited in the motion so long as I am not physically within the state of Minnesota when I do it.Moreover , by the judge   ( TM ) s logic , were I to travel from Fargo to Minneapolis and set up a listening device to listen in on the judge   ( TM ) s chambers which uses the Internet ( or phone line or short wave radio ) to transmit the information , then return to Fargo to listen in on the judge , I would not be violating the laws cited in the motion .
Better yet , were I to have someone else do the installing I would be even further beyond violation ( since in the first case I would have to physically install the device while in the second I would not ) .
In neither case would I be physically within Minnesota when I acquired the information.And here   ( TM ) s what seems to be the second logic failure : MediaSentry DID operate in Minnesota   " by actively accessing Ms. Thomas-Rasset   ( TM ) s computer .
The fact that the company resides outside of the state should not invalidate the illegality of their action within the state .
If a Delaware based company violates Minnesota environmental law by the actions of a subsidiary outside of Minnesota ( say by polluting a river that enters the state ) , the company is still cited in Minnesota , right ? Or is the judge simply trying to focus on intrastate violations rather than interstate and therefore federal violations over which he has no jurisdiction ?
IS it a federal violation to conduct investigations across a state line when the investigating person/entity is not licensed in the initiating and/or target state ?
When the investigating person/entity has no physical presence in the target state ?
NYCL , can you answer this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never commented on Slashdot before, but I think this ruling on MedaSentry may set horrible precedents.
IANAL, IANAML, so I canâ(TM)t comment to the specific laws or legal though processes, but from an outside viewerâ(TM)s perspective the judgeâ(TM)s logic seems to have some flaws.
Please correct me if my own logic is flawed.First, if I understand it correctly, this motion now allows me to directly access the judgeâ(TM)s own computer and not violate the laws cited in the motion so long as I am not physically within the state of Minnesota when I do it.Moreover, by the judgeâ(TM)s logic, were I to travel from Fargo to Minneapolis and set up a listening device to listen in on the judgeâ(TM)s chambers which uses the Internet (or phone line or short wave radio) to transmit the information, then return to Fargo to listen in on the judge, I would not be violating the laws cited in the motion.
Better yet, were I to have someone else do the installing I would be even further beyond violation (since in the first case I would have to physically install the device while in the second I would not).
In neither case would I be physically within Minnesota when I acquired the information.And hereâ(TM)s what seems to be the second logic failure:  MediaSentry DID operate in Minnesota â" by actively accessing Ms. Thomas-Rassetâ(TM)s computer.
The fact that the company resides outside of the state should not invalidate the illegality of their action within the state.
If a Delaware based company violates Minnesota environmental law by the actions of a subsidiary outside of Minnesota (say by polluting a river that enters the state), the company is still cited in Minnesota, right?Or is the judge simply trying to focus on intrastate violations rather than interstate and therefore federal violations over which he has no jurisdiction?
IS it a federal violation to conduct investigations across a state line when the investigating person/entity is not licensed in the initiating and/or target state?
When the investigating person/entity has no physical presence in the target state?
NYCL, can you answer this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302325</id>
	<title>Unleash the hounds!</title>
	<author>mudshark</author>
	<datestamp>1244723940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So is the judge saying that any old schmuck can skip being licensed as a P.I., then go out and collect evidence (possibly in bad faith) on private citizens, and have it be admissible in court?<br> <br>

Whoa. I smell a business opportunity writ large.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So is the judge saying that any old schmuck can skip being licensed as a P.I. , then go out and collect evidence ( possibly in bad faith ) on private citizens , and have it be admissible in court ?
Whoa. I smell a business opportunity writ large .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So is the judge saying that any old schmuck can skip being licensed as a P.I., then go out and collect evidence (possibly in bad faith) on private citizens, and have it be admissible in court?
Whoa. I smell a business opportunity writ large.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302297</id>
	<title>Owtch!</title>
	<author>VirtBlue</author>
	<datestamp>1244723820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well now that is a kick in the balls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well now that is a kick in the balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well now that is a kick in the balls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302643</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>whoever57</author>
	<datestamp>1244726040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This could be a victory for Jammie. The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
<br> <br>
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Is there a motion before the court on this point, or time to put such a motion forward before the trial?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be a victory for Jammie .
The judge carefully lays out , at pages 13-14 , the standards for admissibility of technical evidence .
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards .
Is there a motion before the court on this point , or time to put such a motion forward before the trial ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be a victory for Jammie.
The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Is there a motion before the court on this point, or time to put such a motion forward before the trial?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303645</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244734740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN, and they were in MN when they were being investigated, why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from?</p></div></blockquote><p>Did you bother to read the decision? Apparently not, because if you did, you would have your answer.</p><blockquote><div><p> If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?</p></div></blockquote><p>Red herring. MediaSentry didn't hack into her computer. MediaSentry used the capablities of a stock verison of the P2P software, Kazaa, to get the information. Said information is provided by the software by design. She voluntarily provided the information by using Kazaa.</p><p>Also, are the U.S. laws concerning your actions extra-territorial? Minnesota's laws are not.</p><p>If I am in a state where I hold, or do not need to hold, a PI license and you are in, say Minnesota, and you call me and tell me you some information that incriminates you in a crime against my client, is it your contention that I have committed a crime in Minnesota? Are you saying that I can not testify against you in Minnesota because I am not a licensed PI in Minnesota even though I am complying with the laws where I live, have my business, and work and the information came to me in my home location and was willingly provided by you?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN , and they were in MN when they were being investigated , why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from ? Did you bother to read the decision ?
Apparently not , because if you did , you would have your answer .
If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US , am I no longer liable under US laws just because I 'm in Mexico when I did it ? Red herring .
MediaSentry did n't hack into her computer .
MediaSentry used the capablities of a stock verison of the P2P software , Kazaa , to get the information .
Said information is provided by the software by design .
She voluntarily provided the information by using Kazaa.Also , are the U.S. laws concerning your actions extra-territorial ?
Minnesota 's laws are not.If I am in a state where I hold , or do not need to hold , a PI license and you are in , say Minnesota , and you call me and tell me you some information that incriminates you in a crime against my client , is it your contention that I have committed a crime in Minnesota ?
Are you saying that I can not testify against you in Minnesota because I am not a licensed PI in Minnesota even though I am complying with the laws where I live , have my business , and work and the information came to me in my home location and was willingly provided by you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN, and they were in MN when they were being investigated, why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from?Did you bother to read the decision?
Apparently not, because if you did, you would have your answer.
If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?Red herring.
MediaSentry didn't hack into her computer.
MediaSentry used the capablities of a stock verison of the P2P software, Kazaa, to get the information.
Said information is provided by the software by design.
She voluntarily provided the information by using Kazaa.Also, are the U.S. laws concerning your actions extra-territorial?
Minnesota's laws are not.If I am in a state where I hold, or do not need to hold, a PI license and you are in, say Minnesota, and you call me and tell me you some information that incriminates you in a crime against my client, is it your contention that I have committed a crime in Minnesota?
Are you saying that I can not testify against you in Minnesota because I am not a licensed PI in Minnesota even though I am complying with the laws where I live, have my business, and work and the information came to me in my home location and was willingly provided by you?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305607</id>
	<title>Re:So, what now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244803200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You've obviously never met <a href="http://www.matthaworth.co.uk/img/a-hand.png" title="matthaworth.co.uk" rel="nofollow">Margerie Palm and her 5 Sisters</a> [matthaworth.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've obviously never met Margerie Palm and her 5 Sisters [ matthaworth.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've obviously never met Margerie Palm and her 5 Sisters [matthaworth.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302689</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244726280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't disagree, though your assumed wish.</p><p>Personally, I:</p><p>
&nbsp; Wish that copyright law followed the constitutional purpose and limited duration.<br>
&nbsp; Wish that non-commercial copying was recognized as the minor act that it is, and not one having consequences comparable with armed robbery.<br>
&nbsp; Wish that a hunt of non-commercial copying was not a legal excuse of private wiretaps and invasion of privacy.<br>
&nbsp; Wish that there was a balance between protecting the public interest and protecting corporate profits.<br>
&nbsp; Wish that it was realized that non-commercial copying is a natural consequence of the internet, and to attempt to prevent such activity requires an increasing amount of snooping by the public and private parties.<br>
&nbsp; Wish that it was known that prosecuting or preventing non-commercial copying has no measurable impact on the sale of the important information.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't disagree , though your assumed wish.Personally , I :   Wish that copyright law followed the constitutional purpose and limited duration .
  Wish that non-commercial copying was recognized as the minor act that it is , and not one having consequences comparable with armed robbery .
  Wish that a hunt of non-commercial copying was not a legal excuse of private wiretaps and invasion of privacy .
  Wish that there was a balance between protecting the public interest and protecting corporate profits .
  Wish that it was realized that non-commercial copying is a natural consequence of the internet , and to attempt to prevent such activity requires an increasing amount of snooping by the public and private parties .
  Wish that it was known that prosecuting or preventing non-commercial copying has no measurable impact on the sale of the important information .
   </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't disagree, though your assumed wish.Personally, I:
  Wish that copyright law followed the constitutional purpose and limited duration.
  Wish that non-commercial copying was recognized as the minor act that it is, and not one having consequences comparable with armed robbery.
  Wish that a hunt of non-commercial copying was not a legal excuse of private wiretaps and invasion of privacy.
  Wish that there was a balance between protecting the public interest and protecting corporate profits.
  Wish that it was realized that non-commercial copying is a natural consequence of the internet, and to attempt to prevent such activity requires an increasing amount of snooping by the public and private parties.
  Wish that it was known that prosecuting or preventing non-commercial copying has no measurable impact on the sale of the important information.
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302847</id>
	<title>MediaSentry is legal now</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244727360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regardless of operating without the needed licenses?  How did that reasoning wash?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of operating without the needed licenses ?
How did that reasoning wash ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of operating without the needed licenses?
How did that reasoning wash?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304611</id>
	<title>Where can I get me some Black IP space?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244745240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where can I get me some of this Black IP space? How can I use it? It sounds cool.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where can I get me some of this Black IP space ?
How can I use it ?
It sounds cool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where can I get me some of this Black IP space?
How can I use it?
It sounds cool.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303131</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1244729880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?</p></div><p>I think that would go beyond merely receiving info from a computer in the US.  See the paragraph at the bottom of page 6/top of page 7.  In your case, you'd be violating the law.  In the MediaSentry case, they were not.  If they'd sat in a living room in Iowa and read info publicly posted on a webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, they would not be violating MN law regarding needed a private detective license from the State of Minn. to do so.  The same applies to an FTP server.  And the same applies to a Kazaa server.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US , am I no longer liable under US laws just because I 'm in Mexico when I did it ? I think that would go beyond merely receiving info from a computer in the US .
See the paragraph at the bottom of page 6/top of page 7 .
In your case , you 'd be violating the law .
In the MediaSentry case , they were not .
If they 'd sat in a living room in Iowa and read info publicly posted on a webserver that happens to be in Minnesota , they would not be violating MN law regarding needed a private detective license from the State of Minn. to do so .
The same applies to an FTP server .
And the same applies to a Kazaa server .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it?I think that would go beyond merely receiving info from a computer in the US.
See the paragraph at the bottom of page 6/top of page 7.
In your case, you'd be violating the law.
In the MediaSentry case, they were not.
If they'd sat in a living room in Iowa and read info publicly posted on a webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, they would not be violating MN law regarding needed a private detective license from the State of Minn. to do so.
The same applies to an FTP server.
And the same applies to a Kazaa server.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>Steve1952</author>
	<datestamp>1244724060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.  Then again, since apparently it's now OK to snoop on other computers for purposes of obtaining evidence to use against someone, perhaps I'm just a bit slow to recognize that this is the dawn of a whole new industry!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained .
Then again , since apparently it 's now OK to snoop on other computers for purposes of obtaining evidence to use against someone , perhaps I 'm just a bit slow to recognize that this is the dawn of a whole new industry !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.
Then again, since apparently it's now OK to snoop on other computers for purposes of obtaining evidence to use against someone, perhaps I'm just a bit slow to recognize that this is the dawn of a whole new industry!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</id>
	<title>Get over it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244724540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download (which is what Kazaa does) is willful copyright infringement. Does anyone actually think that's not what the defendant actually did? Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or didn't exclude? It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.</p><p>Wishing that it wasn't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright doesn't make it so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download ( which is what Kazaa does ) is willful copyright infringement .
Does anyone actually think that 's not what the defendant actually did ?
Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or did n't exclude ?
It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.Wishing that it was n't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright does n't make it so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download (which is what Kazaa does) is willful copyright infringement.
Does anyone actually think that's not what the defendant actually did?
Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or didn't exclude?
It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.Wishing that it wasn't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright doesn't make it so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291</id>
	<title>So, what now?</title>
	<author>Mr\_eX9</author>
	<datestamp>1244723760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are we fucked, or are we really fucked?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we fucked , or are we really fucked ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we fucked, or are we really fucked?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303527</id>
	<title>So the expert witness is a liar or clueless idiot?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244733660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA's objections to testimony by the defendant's expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point."</p><p>If there is provably no access point involved, why would someone describing himself as an "expert witness", and a professor at that, opine that it's possible someone accessed the defendant's internet account through it? Is he spreading FUD to get them off the hook, against his better knowledge?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA 's objections to testimony by the defendant 's expert , Prof. Yongdae Kim ... The court also ruled that , 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case , the Court excludes Kim 's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant 's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point .
" If there is provably no access point involved , why would someone describing himself as an " expert witness " , and a professor at that , opine that it 's possible someone accessed the defendant 's internet account through it ?
Is he spreading FUD to get them off the hook , against his better knowledge ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA's objections to testimony by the defendant's expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim ... The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point.
"If there is provably no access point involved, why would someone describing himself as an "expert witness", and a professor at that, opine that it's possible someone accessed the defendant's internet account through it?
Is he spreading FUD to get them off the hook, against his better knowledge?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303503</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1244733420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>it is only "willful" if you understand how kazaa operates. If Ken Lay can use the "I was too stupid to know bettr" excuse, shouldn't Jammie be able to also?</htmltext>
<tokenext>it is only " willful " if you understand how kazaa operates .
If Ken Lay can use the " I was too stupid to know bettr " excuse , should n't Jammie be able to also ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is only "willful" if you understand how kazaa operates.
If Ken Lay can use the "I was too stupid to know bettr" excuse, shouldn't Jammie be able to also?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</id>
	<title>Could be a victory</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1244723760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This could be a victory for Jammie. The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence. <br> <br>I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.<br> <br>Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This could be a victory for Jammie .
The judge carefully lays out , at pages 13-14 , the standards for admissibility of technical evidence .
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards .
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly , this trial may end abrutly , because the RIAA 's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could be a victory for Jammie.
The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302577</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>Jay Clay</author>
	<datestamp>1244725680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) it may or may not be willful.  I know plenty of people who didn't realize what they were getting into with file sharing apps.  As a matter of fact, most people I know who aren't fairly computer savvy thought the whole illegal internet music thing was about downloading, not uploading.<br>2) it's not what we think happened.  It's if there are other PLAUSIBLE things that could have happened.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) it may or may not be willful .
I know plenty of people who did n't realize what they were getting into with file sharing apps .
As a matter of fact , most people I know who are n't fairly computer savvy thought the whole illegal internet music thing was about downloading , not uploading.2 ) it 's not what we think happened .
It 's if there are other PLAUSIBLE things that could have happened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) it may or may not be willful.
I know plenty of people who didn't realize what they were getting into with file sharing apps.
As a matter of fact, most people I know who aren't fairly computer savvy thought the whole illegal internet music thing was about downloading, not uploading.2) it's not what we think happened.
It's if there are other PLAUSIBLE things that could have happened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302771</id>
	<title>Judge OK</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1244726820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who is Judge OK, and why does he have MediaSentry evidence? Usually judges aren't supposed to be directly involved in cases.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who is Judge OK , and why does he have MediaSentry evidence ?
Usually judges are n't supposed to be directly involved in cases .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who is Judge OK, and why does he have MediaSentry evidence?
Usually judges aren't supposed to be directly involved in cases.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302431</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>NewYorkCountryLawyer</author>
	<datestamp>1244724540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.</p></div><p>Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw. I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.Me neither .
But I 'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw .
I 'm sure that with most state licensing statutes , the result would be otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.Me neither.
But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw.
I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302527</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>DaveV1.0</author>
	<datestamp>1244725260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.</p></div></blockquote><p>Please provide, in detail, proof of your statement above as it pertains to this case, complete with references.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.Please provide , in detail , proof of your statement above as it pertains to this case , complete with references .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.Please provide, in detail, proof of your statement above as it pertains to this case, complete with references.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304341</id>
	<title>RE: Judge Fool</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244740680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Judge is an Ass-whipe.</p><p>Should have never lived or breathed a single breath.  What a waste.</p><p>Elect a Neanderthal Human like George Walker Bush, who hires Neanderthal like-lings as Richard Cheney and Condie-thang Rice, and reap what you get<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... pornograph of the law, bastardification of the law, masterbation of the law in accordance of the Feuhrer George Walker Bush.</p><p>Seig Heil, Seig Heil, Seig Heil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Judge is an Ass-whipe.Should have never lived or breathed a single breath .
What a waste.Elect a Neanderthal Human like George Walker Bush , who hires Neanderthal like-lings as Richard Cheney and Condie-thang Rice , and reap what you get ... pornograph of the law , bastardification of the law , masterbation of the law in accordance of the Feuhrer George Walker Bush.Seig Heil , Seig Heil , Seig Heil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Judge is an Ass-whipe.Should have never lived or breathed a single breath.
What a waste.Elect a Neanderthal Human like George Walker Bush, who hires Neanderthal like-lings as Richard Cheney and Condie-thang Rice, and reap what you get ... pornograph of the law, bastardification of the law, masterbation of the law in accordance of the Feuhrer George Walker Bush.Seig Heil, Seig Heil, Seig Heil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302821</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1244727240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that even if it's wrong, there is no justification for putting her through years of court cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and emotional trauma enough to push some people to suicide.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that even if it 's wrong , there is no justification for putting her through years of court cases , hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines , and emotional trauma enough to push some people to suicide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that even if it's wrong, there is no justification for putting her through years of court cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, and emotional trauma enough to push some people to suicide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305231</id>
	<title>Alpply this to McKinnon case</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244797620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He "hacked" into DoD machines from his house in the UK.</p><p>The US Gov want to try him for breaking into the computers under US law.</p><p>He wasn't in US law.</p><p>Therefore, either this judge is wrong or the US Gov is.</p><p>And note to Dave V 1.0, McKinnon used the normal ability of the "rlogin" command available to log in to these machines. Seems that this is still not enough to make this OK...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He " hacked " into DoD machines from his house in the UK.The US Gov want to try him for breaking into the computers under US law.He was n't in US law.Therefore , either this judge is wrong or the US Gov is.And note to Dave V 1.0 , McKinnon used the normal ability of the " rlogin " command available to log in to these machines .
Seems that this is still not enough to make this OK.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He "hacked" into DoD machines from his house in the UK.The US Gov want to try him for breaking into the computers under US law.He wasn't in US law.Therefore, either this judge is wrong or the US Gov is.And note to Dave V 1.0, McKinnon used the normal ability of the "rlogin" command available to log in to these machines.
Seems that this is still not enough to make this OK...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302545</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302561</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>sbeckstead</author>
	<datestamp>1244725500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You must be new here...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You must be new here.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You must be new here...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302633</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>Fieryphoenix</author>
	<datestamp>1244725980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>There was no ruling that it was legal. There was a ruling that it did not violate any of the three particular laws the defense argued it violated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There was no ruling that it was legal .
There was a ruling that it did not violate any of the three particular laws the defense argued it violated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There was no ruling that it was legal.
There was a ruling that it did not violate any of the three particular laws the defense argued it violated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28322219</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>Ramahan</author>
	<datestamp>1244885460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download (which is what Kazaa does) is willful copyright infringement. Does anyone actually think that's not what the defendant actually did? Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or didn't exclude? It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.</p><p>Wishing that it wasn't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright doesn't make it so.</p></div><p>I guess maybe you're either a RIAA loved child or somewhere along the line you've missed the information that the RIAA using their perfect Media Sentry evidence and expert witnesses have sent "settlement" letters to those who have never owned a computer, the deaf, and the dead.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download ( which is what Kazaa does ) is willful copyright infringement .
Does anyone actually think that 's not what the defendant actually did ?
Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or did n't exclude ?
It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.Wishing that it was n't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright does n't make it so.I guess maybe you 're either a RIAA loved child or somewhere along the line you 've missed the information that the RIAA using their perfect Media Sentry evidence and expert witnesses have sent " settlement " letters to those who have never owned a computer , the deaf , and the dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download (which is what Kazaa does) is willful copyright infringement.
Does anyone actually think that's not what the defendant actually did?
Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or didn't exclude?
It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.Wishing that it wasn't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright doesn't make it so.I guess maybe you're either a RIAA loved child or somewhere along the line you've missed the information that the RIAA using their perfect Media Sentry evidence and expert witnesses have sent "settlement" letters to those who have never owned a computer, the deaf, and the dead.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303141</id>
	<title>Grammar damnit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244730000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's "OKs" not "OK's"</p><p>Learn to use the fucking apostrophe</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's " OKs " not " OK 's " Learn to use the fucking apostrophe</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's "OKs" not "OK's"Learn to use the fucking apostrophe</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302735</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244726580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I trust your judgment on this, but if Jammie's expert has just been somewhat muzzled, why was there not a similar ruling against MediaSentry or Doug Jacobson at the same time?  When would the ruling that stops them from testifying take place?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I trust your judgment on this , but if Jammie 's expert has just been somewhat muzzled , why was there not a similar ruling against MediaSentry or Doug Jacobson at the same time ?
When would the ruling that stops them from testifying take place ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I trust your judgment on this, but if Jammie's expert has just been somewhat muzzled, why was there not a similar ruling against MediaSentry or Doug Jacobson at the same time?
When would the ruling that stops them from testifying take place?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302525</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>Rogerborg</author>
	<datestamp>1244725260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1, Harsh But True.

</p><p>The interest here isn't in justice, or even the law, it's in whether we can get away getting something for nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 , Harsh But True .
The interest here is n't in justice , or even the law , it 's in whether we can get away getting something for nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1, Harsh But True.
The interest here isn't in justice, or even the law, it's in whether we can get away getting something for nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303193</id>
	<title>Re:Unleash the hounds!</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1244730480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the court is saying is that if you're a person in California sitting behind a computer in California and decide to look up some information on another person, and the information you find is located on a public webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, you are not required to apply for and receive a private investigator's license from the State of Minnesota before reading the web page.</p><p>In this case, the server was a Kazaa server, but it makes no difference if it's a Kazaa server or an FTP server or an HTTP server.  The point is, you don't need a Minnesota PI license to read publicly published information from another state, even if the server happens to be located in Minnesota.</p><p>Had the court decided the other way, I think that'd be pretty seriously frakked up...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the court is saying is that if you 're a person in California sitting behind a computer in California and decide to look up some information on another person , and the information you find is located on a public webserver that happens to be in Minnesota , you are not required to apply for and receive a private investigator 's license from the State of Minnesota before reading the web page.In this case , the server was a Kazaa server , but it makes no difference if it 's a Kazaa server or an FTP server or an HTTP server .
The point is , you do n't need a Minnesota PI license to read publicly published information from another state , even if the server happens to be located in Minnesota.Had the court decided the other way , I think that 'd be pretty seriously frakked up.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the court is saying is that if you're a person in California sitting behind a computer in California and decide to look up some information on another person, and the information you find is located on a public webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, you are not required to apply for and receive a private investigator's license from the State of Minnesota before reading the web page.In this case, the server was a Kazaa server, but it makes no difference if it's a Kazaa server or an FTP server or an HTTP server.
The point is, you don't need a Minnesota PI license to read publicly published information from another state, even if the server happens to be located in Minnesota.Had the court decided the other way, I think that'd be pretty seriously frakked up...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303075</id>
	<title>Re:Could be a victory</title>
	<author>MobileTatsu-NJG</author>
	<datestamp>1244729340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw.</p> </div><p>So... YANAML?</p><p>=)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Me neither .
But I 'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw .
So... YANAML ? = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Me neither.
But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw.
So... YANAML?=)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302431</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303233</id>
	<title>Re:So, what now?</title>
	<author>Jason Levine</author>
	<datestamp>1244730720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, not all of us are single geeks living in our parents' basement.  Some of us are married and... hmmm... Nevermind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , not all of us are single geeks living in our parents ' basement .
Some of us are married and... hmmm... Nevermind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, not all of us are single geeks living in our parents' basement.
Some of us are married and... hmmm... Nevermind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305713</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1244804640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If the RIAA were asking for $1 per song to cover a license from iTunes, I'd agree.<br> <br>If the RIAA were asking for $5 to offer a token gesture of restitution for having done wrong, I'd agree.<br> <br>If the RIAA were asking for $50 per song to offer a significant deterrant from offence by others, I'd agree.<br> <br>The RIAA were asking for <a href="http://www.thespacelab.tv/spaceLAB/2007/10October/MusicNews-12-RIAA.htm" title="thespacelab.tv"> <b>$150,000 per song</b> </a> [thespacelab.tv] which I cannot agree with on any level. They were awarded $9,250 by the jury in the original case, which again I cannot begin to comprehend.<br> <br>You tell me how that is in any way just. The law is, after all, about justice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the RIAA were asking for $ 1 per song to cover a license from iTunes , I 'd agree .
If the RIAA were asking for $ 5 to offer a token gesture of restitution for having done wrong , I 'd agree .
If the RIAA were asking for $ 50 per song to offer a significant deterrant from offence by others , I 'd agree .
The RIAA were asking for $ 150,000 per song [ thespacelab.tv ] which I can not agree with on any level .
They were awarded $ 9,250 by the jury in the original case , which again I can not begin to comprehend .
You tell me how that is in any way just .
The law is , after all , about justice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the RIAA were asking for $1 per song to cover a license from iTunes, I'd agree.
If the RIAA were asking for $5 to offer a token gesture of restitution for having done wrong, I'd agree.
If the RIAA were asking for $50 per song to offer a significant deterrant from offence by others, I'd agree.
The RIAA were asking for  $150,000 per song  [thespacelab.tv] which I cannot agree with on any level.
They were awarded $9,250 by the jury in the original case, which again I cannot begin to comprehend.
You tell me how that is in any way just.
The law is, after all, about justice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303285</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1244731140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have no problem with this person being found guilty.  What I have a problem with is being fined such a ridiculous amount for infringement that, even if we assume every download made was a purchase lost to iTunes or the like (highly unlikely) amounted to about $20.  It's a ridiculous fine for petty theft.  Neither letting her off completely nor fining her thousands of dollars is justice.  But if those are the only two options offered -- letting her off completely is closer...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no problem with this person being found guilty .
What I have a problem with is being fined such a ridiculous amount for infringement that , even if we assume every download made was a purchase lost to iTunes or the like ( highly unlikely ) amounted to about $ 20 .
It 's a ridiculous fine for petty theft .
Neither letting her off completely nor fining her thousands of dollars is justice .
But if those are the only two options offered -- letting her off completely is closer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no problem with this person being found guilty.
What I have a problem with is being fined such a ridiculous amount for infringement that, even if we assume every download made was a purchase lost to iTunes or the like (highly unlikely) amounted to about $20.
It's a ridiculous fine for petty theft.
Neither letting her off completely nor fining her thousands of dollars is justice.
But if those are the only two options offered -- letting her off completely is closer...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302549</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304451</id>
	<title>Re:So, what now?</title>
	<author>MarkvW</author>
	<datestamp>1244742300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WE are not fucked.  If the lady is a pirate, she may be.<br>If you STEAL, you PAY.</p><p>Only schadenfreude for the thieves, baby!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WE are not fucked .
If the lady is a pirate , she may be.If you STEAL , you PAY.Only schadenfreude for the thieves , baby !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WE are not fucked.
If the lady is a pirate, she may be.If you STEAL, you PAY.Only schadenfreude for the thieves, baby!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302549</id>
	<title>Re:Get over it</title>
	<author>davmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1244725440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've made similar comments to this case in the past, as recently as yesterday.  While I despise the RIAA and think they are a perfect example of how not to conduct business, at the same time its obvious from the evidence of the first trial that Jamie [what ever her last name is this week] did in fact infringe copyright.  Thus I have a very hard time wanting to root for her side.  I wish the Slashdot community could have found a better case to rally around.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've made similar comments to this case in the past , as recently as yesterday .
While I despise the RIAA and think they are a perfect example of how not to conduct business , at the same time its obvious from the evidence of the first trial that Jamie [ what ever her last name is this week ] did in fact infringe copyright .
Thus I have a very hard time wanting to root for her side .
I wish the Slashdot community could have found a better case to rally around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've made similar comments to this case in the past, as recently as yesterday.
While I despise the RIAA and think they are a perfect example of how not to conduct business, at the same time its obvious from the evidence of the first trial that Jamie [what ever her last name is this week] did in fact infringe copyright.
Thus I have a very hard time wanting to root for her side.
I wish the Slashdot community could have found a better case to rally around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28307129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302527
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303051
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302525
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302633
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303503
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302561
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302449
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303615
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305713
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303075
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302431
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302735
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303233
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303645
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303285
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302549
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302997
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28322219
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302821
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302545
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305607
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_11_2226203_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28310133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304991
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302771
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302291
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302617
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303233
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305607
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303615
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304451
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302433
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28310133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305713
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302577
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28322219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302821
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303285
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302335
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302449
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302431
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303075
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303051
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302633
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302527
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302451
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303645
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303131
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302545
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28305231
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28307129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303527
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302847
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28302325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28303141
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_11_2226203.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_11_2226203.28304349
</commentlist>
</conversation>
